Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

08 Jan

http://adask.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/is-the-declaration-of-independence-a-treaty/

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.
Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!
But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.
•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.

“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

But sometimes, it’s as if the Good LORD makes me read things I don’t want to read, or respond to things I personally don’t want to respond to.  I don’t hear a voice.  It’s not an absolute “compulsion”.  It’s just something like getting a sudden “taste” for a Snickers bar. Something inside me suddenly tells me I should have a Snickers bar—or in this case, I should reply to a comment about the “united States of America”.
I know that Snickers bars aren’t really good for me.  It’s old news (to me) that “united States of America” is sometimes mistakenly taken to be the proper name for our country.   I’m a busy (or confused) man.  So, I’ve got better things to do than waste my time responding the “united States of America” issue.  Been there.  Done that.  Several times.
And yet, there was that darned “inclination” to respond to a comment that I didn’t want to respond to.  So I started writing a response and, as usually happens whenever I get one of these “inclinations,” I was much surprised to find myself learning something that might be important.
The Good LORD never wastes my time.  It seems that he’s doing so almost every time I get one of this “inclinations”.  But I always learn something—as I did today when I replied to the previous comment on “united States of America”.
•  For whatever it’s worth, my primary motive for writing this blog is not to educate my readers, but to educate myself.  I learn by writing.  The slow, pedantic process of writing forces me to slow down and patiently consider some idea that I presume to already understand.
I write. I slow down.  I take time to look and consider.  And if I’m lucky (or blessed), I suddenly “see” new insights that I had not previously imagined.
For me, writing is not simply a way of speaking and telling what I already know to others.  Writing is a way of hearing and learning insights that may flow from “what I already know”.  That’s why writing fascinates me.  It’s like going up a nearby creek to pan for gold.  I don’t always find “gold” when I write, but I’m always excited by the possibility.
Writing is not the means by which I try to help educate my readers and tell them what I think.  Writing is the means by which I help educate myself and learn things that I otherwise have not yet perceived.  So when I get that sudden “inclination” to write on a subject (like, “united States of America”), I am usually and initially annoyed by the diversion, but I always follow through in hopes of finding another small nugget of gold (or maybe fool’s gold?).

•  So I responded to the comment on “united States of America” as follows:
I picked up on the lower-case “u” in the word “united” in “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” (which has come to be referred to as the “Declaration of Independence”) probably about 15 years ago.  Maybe more.
The word “united” is not capitalized because it’s used as an adjective (as is the other “u”-word, “unanimous” and also the word “thirteen” in the title of that document) rather than as part of a proper name.  There was no single entity named “The United States of America,” or “United States of America” or even “United States” on July 4th, A.D. 1776. Therefore, it would’ve been improper to capitalize the world “united” as if it were part of a proper noun/proper name.
Such entity was not created until five years later, in A.D. 1781, when the Articles of Confederation first created a confederation and perpetual Union that was expressly named “The United States of America”.
The “Declaration” of July 4th, A.D. 1776 merely created thirteen separate and independent States that were no more united into a single political entity than China and Brazil are today. Nevertheless, on July 4^th, A.D. 1776, these thirteen independent States or “countries” were acting in a “united” fashion by drafting the “Declaration of Independence”.  While those thirteen new States were acting in a “united” manner, they were doing so just like thirteen completely separate States or countries (like Brazil and China) might agree to act in concert in a treaty.
(Damn!  There’s my “daily nugget”.  I won’t say that it’s absolutely true, but it’s at least arguable that the nature of our “Declaration of Independence” is that of a treaty! That hypothesis might not strike y’all as particularly insightful, but as you’ll read, it just might be.)
As of July 4^th, A.D. 1776, these thirteen new States/countries were not “united” into a single political entity similar to the singular nation composed of several formerly independent countries that was once called the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”—USSR.
Because the newly-created, thirteen States had not yet been joined into a single “country,” they had no single, proper name such as “The United States of America,” “United States of America” or even “United States”.  Therefore, as used in “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” the word “united” was used as an adjective and properly and necessarily lower-case.
I’m grateful for the reader’s comment on “united States of America” because, in responding, I realized that the “Declaration of Independence” might be properly understood to be the first treaty among the thirteen, newly-created but independent States.

•  Up until now, I’d thought that the only proper way to access the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence” was through the 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which declares,

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, while the Constitution might expressly declare or enumerate several “rights” (as in the Bill of Rights), that enumeration could not be presumed to be complete.  Other rights existing at the time of the Constitution’s ratification would continue to exist and be recognized by the government even though they were not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
Therefore, if you wanted to claim any of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence” you must first identity yourself as one of the “people” of the several “United States” and/or of “The United States of America,” and claim your God-given, unalienable Rights (such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—but there are others) by means of the 9th Amendment.
But today, for the first time, I realize that “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” might be viewed as not only the document that created those first thirteen States, but perhaps also as the first treaty among those first thirteen States.

•  Trying to describe the nature of our “Declaration of Independence” raises a peculiar question:  What, exactly, is that document?
Technically, it “incorporated” the first thirteen States.  Is it therefore properly described as a “corporate charter”?  (Thirteen corporate charters rolled into one?)
But it also dissolved the “political bands” that had previously bound the pre-existing colonies to Great Britain.  Does that make it some sort document of “corporate dissolution”?
Or was it a document that specified all of the breaches of trust committed by King George, and was therefore intended to be an official “notice” of the dissolution of the previous trust relationship between the colonies and Great Britain?
In truth, the “Declaration” accomplished several different objectives that might otherwise have been achieved by means of several different instruments.
I.e., for the sake of clarity, the first instrument might’ve officially terminated the contractual and/or fiduciary relationship of each of the thirteen colonies to Great Britain.
A second instrument might’ve officially created each of the thirteen States out of the former colonies and included a declaration of the principles (“All men are created equal,” etc.) on which each new State was bound to act.
A third instrument might’ve been expressly described as the first “Treaty” between the newly formed, independent States to act in concert in their separation from, and war with, King George.
However, instead of complicating things by drafting several documents, the Founders wrote a “Declaration of Independence” that (when supported by firearms) achieved several objectives simultaneously.
The simplicity—and political expediency—of drafting a single inspiring “Declaration” instead of several tedious legal documents—served the Founders well.  But it also left some confusion as to the essential nature of the “Declaration” for future generations (or at least, for me).

•  But let’s suppose that today’s “nugget” (that the “Declaration of Independence” was a treaty) is correct.
What’s the significance?  What’s the big deal?
Well, if the “Declaration” was the first treaty among the several States when they existed as separate countries, then it may be that—in addition to accessing our God-given, unalienable Rights by means of the 9^th Amendment—we can also access those rights under one or more of the four clauses in the Constitution that apply to treaties.
Those four clauses are Articles: 1.10.1 (State prohibition to make); 2.2.2 (presidential power to make); 3.2.1 (court jurisdiction); and, 6.2 (supremacy clause):

Article 1.10.1:  “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation . . . .”  This prohibition applies to States of the Union only after the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788.  It has no bearing on any treaties entered into prior to ratification of the Constitution.  Thus, treaties entered into by the States even before they created the perpetual Union with the Articles of Confederation of A.D.1781 would remain valid and effective.  If it were true that the “Declaration” were a treaty in A.D. 1776, it would still be a treaty today.

Article 2.2.2:  The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . . .”  Since the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788, only the President has power to “make Treaties”.  That post-1788 restriction has no bearing on the legitimacy of a treaty entered into by the States in A.D. 1776.

Article 3.2.1:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law or Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their Authority; . . . .”
If this clause had only referenced “treaties which shall be made,” the judicial power of the Article III courts would only apply to those treaties made after the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788 and would not apply to the “Declaration”/treaty of July 4^th, A.D. 1776.
However, because Article 3.2.1 includes the express phrase “and Treaties made,” the judicial power extends to treaties “made” (past-tense) prior to the ratification of the Constitution in A.D. 1788.
If it were true that the “Declaration” is a treaty, then it should follow that any lawsuit that implicates the “Declaration” and/or the God-given, unalienable Rights declared therein, should open the door to being heard in an Article III, judicial court of the United States.
Thus, it appears possible that if any plaintiff or defendant raised the “Declaration” and his God-given, unalienable Rights as part of his petition or defense, that the only court that might have jurisdiction over that case would be an Article III court of the United States.
Do you begin to see why the hypothesis that the “Declaration” is a treaty could be important?
Consider:  suppose you were issued a mere traffic ticket and you found a legitimate basis to invoke the “Declaration of Independence” and/or your God-given, unalienable Rights as part of your defense.  Could you thereby challenge and perhaps even defeat the jurisdiction of the municipal court?  If cases involving treaties can only be heard by an Article III court, your local municipal court would seemingly lack jurisdiction to hear such cases.  In fact, even your state, administrative and territorial courts might have no jurisdiction to hear a case involving a treaty.
As a plaintiff, trying to even find (let alone access) an Article III court under the Constitution is difficult if not impossible.  We used to have “District Courts of the United States” under Article III of the Constitution.  We now have “United States District Courts” which are not Article III/judicial in nature, but are instead “territorial” courts probably operating under the authority of Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution (exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress over the territories).
I have no clear idea as to how to open an Article III judicial court as a plaintiff.  There are a couple of theories on how to do so, but I don’t know if anyone can actually do it.
However, if I were an alleged defendant in a case, and my first answer: 1) invoked my status as one of the “people” of “The United States of America”; 2) made a claim on my God-given, unalienable Rights; and 3) invoked both the 9^th Amendment and Article 3.2.1—I might be able to challenge the jurisdiction of whichever trial court had been invoked by the plaintiff.  If I could do so successfully, I might be able to put the plaintiff in the untenable position of trying to find an Article III (judicial) court to hear his petition.  The cost and inconvenience (and potential impossibility) of invoking an Article III court might be sufficient to dissuade the plaintiff (or even prosecutor) from proceeding with his case.
This is all conjectural.  If the strategy as outlined was potentially effective, it wouldn’t be easy to implement and the “system” might work mightily to prevent the strategy from succeeding.  On the other hand, if the strategy were invoked very early in any proceeding and presented in way that seemed likely to succeed, there’s a good chance that the plaintiff/prosecutor would drop the case rather than take a chance on losing and making some explosive precedent.

Article 6.2:    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
If the “Declaration” is a treaty, then under the supremacy clause (Article 6.2) of the Constitution, it’s part of the “supreme Law of the Land” and the “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”.
The problem here is that the supremacy clause applies to judges “in every State” of the Union.  It does not apply to judges acting in territories.  If it’s true that “The State of Oregon” is the proper name for a State of the Union while “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” or “OR” signify a territory, then the “territorial” judges of “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” and “OR” are not subject to the supremacy clause.
If so, a plaintiff or defendant can probably not access the “Declaration” as a treaty under the “supremacy clause” in a territorial court.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
If you invoked the “Declaration” under the “supremacy clause” in a territorial court of an apparent “state” (actually, territory) and did so with great skill, you might be able to compel that court to openly or at least implicitly admit that it is not a court of a State of the Union.  I guarantee that that’s not an admission that any territorial court at the “state” level will be eager to make on the record.
More, even if such admission were made, it would open the door for a defendant to challenge the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that he and all of the acts, facts, evidence and alleged offenses took place within the venue of a State of the Union and therefore was not subject to the authority of a “territorial” court.
If the law gives you lemons, make citric acid.

•  If you can’t use the supremacy clause (Article 6.2) successfully, you might try to also invoke the 9^th Amendment to access your God-given, unalienable Rights.
But the 9^th might also fail insofar as the Bill of Rights is only intended to protect the States of the Union and the people of the States of the Union from the federal government.  If you failed to establish that you and the facts of your case were all within a State of the Union, and failed to refute that you and your acts took place in a territory like “TX” or “OR,” then you might not be able to make effective claims based on the 9^th Amendment.
But, if the “Declaration” really is a treaty, that’s not necessarily bad for defendants if their defense also invoked Article 3.2.1 (“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law or Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,. . . .”).  If we’re not in a State of the Union then, under Article 3.2.1, the door might swing wide open for a defense based on a treaty (the “Declaration”?) that could only be heard by an Article III (judicial) court.

•  So, whatcha think?  Do my “insights du jour” make any sense?  Or are they fundamentally flawed in way that makes them illusory and without value?
Lemme know.

Corporate Sovereigns

Corporate Sovereigns

08 Mar

http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/corporate-sovereigns/
To understand what kind of government you’re living under, you must first ask Who or What is deemed sovereign?
For example, in a theocracy, God is deemed to be the only sovereign.
In a monarchy, one man (the king) is the one and only (‘mono”) earthly sovereign.  He has ultimate power to declare the law.  He—as law-giver—is above the law.  All else are subjects in that they are “subject” to do just about anything the “monarch”/sovereign orders them to do.

For most of western history, the king was sovereign because he alone received his “rights” (divine right of kings) directly from God.  The king was at least God’s “chosen one” and in some people’s minds, he was “god on earth”.  Ultimately, all sovereignty in the western political thought flows from the God of the Bible.
The king received his office in a church coronation rather than a public election or civil ceremony.  The king wore a crown intended to replicate the “corona” seen around the heads of the Christ and disciples in medieval paintings.   The king was sovereign because he received his rights directly from God.  All else were deemed “subjects” because they received only those rights which the king wished to grant them, and received no rights directly from God.
In a western aristocracy, a handful of “aristocrats” (elitists) were the “sovereigns” who were deemed to be endowed with rights directly from God and above the law.  All else were subjects because they did not receive their rights directly from God.
•  Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . .”   What is “Republican Form of Government”?  It’s not a monarchy.  It’s not an aristocracy.  It’s not a pure theocracy.  It’s an unprecedented and revolutionary lawform based on the first and second principles of our “Declaration of Independence”.
The Declaration’s first principle is that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  By declaring that every man (not just a single king or a handful of aristocrats) had been directly and equally endowed by his Creator with God-given, unalienable Rights, the Declaration elevated each man, woman and even unborn child to the status of an individual “sovereign”.
Our status as individual sovereigns was recognized in the A.D. 1783 case of Chisholm v. Georgia where the Supreme Court of the United States declared that each of the people of The United States of America were “sovereigns without subjects”.  So long as all ordinary Americans were deemed “sovereigns,” government was our public servant rather than our master.
Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution has never been repealed or amended.  So—do we currently enjoy a “Republican Form of Government”?
Heck, no.  Today’s government finds it “inconvenient” to recognize We the People as individual sovereigns and to therefore serve us as our public servant.  Government much prefers to be our “public master” and cause us to serve it.  Therefore, today we allegedly have a “democracy” (even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the federal and virtually all state constitutions).
What is a “democracy”?  It’s a collectivist form of government (identical to communism and socialism) wherein the people are still recognized as “sovereign”—but only as a group or collective, never in the capacity as individuals.  The “collective” is presumed to be democracy’s “sovereign” and any time over 51% of the voters vote one way or another, the result of their vote is presumed to represent the “will of the collective-sovereign”.
There’s an old joke definition for “democracy”:  Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.  We know the two wolves will “vote” to eat the one sheep.  We assume this vote is a simple matter of mathematics (2 is greater than 1).  But the foundation for democratic cannibalism is more spiritual than mathematical.  The legality of two wolves voting to eat the one sheep is premised on the idea that no citizen of the democracy is an individual sovereign.  The wolves can eat the sheep not because 2 are greater than 1 but because the sheep (as member of a democracy) has no God-given, unalienable Right to Life.  Without those God-given rights, we are not sovereigns.  Without individual sovereignty, we have no right to resist the will of the democracy’s sovereign-collective.   Whenever a majority of those who vote, vote to take a citizen’s or minority group’s money, property, children or even lives—the victims—being a mere subjects have no right to resist.
•  The idea of democracy (that everyone gets to vote) is seductive and hard to resist.  But few recognize the danger and real purpose of democracy (like all collectivist governments):  To reduce all men to the status of subjects; to deny that any man is a “sovereign” and thereby subject all men to duties of obedience to the “state” that claims to represent the “collective” (sovereign).
We were first seduced into the treasonous idea of democracy in the 1930s by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal”.  Seventy-odd years later, do we therefore have a “democracy” today wherein everyone gets to vote?
Heck, no.  Today, 70% of the American people are against President Obama’s proposed universal health care bill.  Nevertheless, President Obama and the Democrats (who presumably favor “democracy”) are trying to force the health care bill down the America’s throat.  Where’s the Democrats’ “democracy” in supporting a bill that the overwhelming majority of American people reject?
Clearly, we don’t have a “democracy”.   Instead, we have a “representative democracy” wherein Whee duh Peepul can vote to elect our legislators, presidents and state judges, but only the handful of legislators (535 in our federal Congress and smaller numbers in each of the state legislatures) actually get to vote on our laws.  By consenting to participate in an unconstitutional democracy, Whee duh Peepul have gained virtually nothing while we’ve surrendered our God-given, unalienable Rights and degraded ourselves from the status of sovereigns to that of subjects.
With that degradation, the US has slowly begun to decline from glory to impotence, from prosperity to poverty, and ultimately towards national destruction.
Why did Whee agree to trade the “Republican Form” (that recognizes every man as an individual sovereign) for a democracy (that recognizes every man as a subject)?  First, because we foolishly trusted government to “secure” our God-given, unalienable Rights.  Second, because we failed to understand and value those “unalienable Rights”.  Having lost our understanding and even memory of our God-given, unalienable Rights, we failed to recognize government’s treason when it imposed a democracy/collective upon us that denied the very existence of those rights.
So, do we even have a “representative  democracy” today?
Again, heck, no.  What we actually have is a corporate form of government where our government officials are mere “businessmen” doing their level best to enrich themselves by plundering the Peepul.  Congressmen have prepared a “golden-parachute” retirement fund for themselves that makes So-So Security look like chump change.  If the People’s rights as sovereigns were still “secured” by our legislators (as mandated by our “Declaration of Independence”), the People’s retirement packages would be at least as generous as those of our “public servants”.
If the People were still deemed individual sovereigns, the Rand Institute and others would not have concluded that government employees are, on average, currently paid about twice what they would earn doing the same job in the private sector.  If We the People were still sovereigns, why would we pay our servants to live more luxuriously than ourselves?  Excess government pay is simply another evidence that government deems itself to be sovereign or at least to represent some sovereigns other than the People.  Today, Whee duh Peepul are deemed to be subjects.  We are not served.  Instead, we are compelled to serve.  Who do you suppose will pay for the billion dollar “bail-outs” of Wall St. financial institutions of 2009—the sovereigns or the subjects?  The taxpayer-subjects will ultimately pay.  That’s just another proof that Whee are no longer deemed “sovereigns”.
•  America’s first shooting Revolution was animated by the battle cry of, “No Taxation Without Representation!”  Today, it’s common knowledge that our “representatives” in Congress don’t even bother to read the bills that they vote for or against.  How, pray tell, can congressmen elected by Whee Duh Peepul to enact new legislation and taxes, truly “represent” Duh Peepul if the congressmen don’t even bother to read the bills they vote for or against?
Clearly, our elected “representatives” do not truly “represent” us.  (But, if we are no longer the sovereigns, why should they?)  Thus, today, insofar as the People aren’t even represented in Congress, we don’t even have a “representative democracy”.
So, if we don’t have a theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, republican form, democracy or even representative democracy, what’ve we got?  The answer will be found in discerning who our alleged “representatives” truly represent.  Whoever they represent are the real “sovereigns”—and as I said at the outset, the nature of every government is discovered by identifying Who or What is deemed “sovereign”.
Q:  Whose interests (other than their own, of course) do our legislators truly serve?
A: Political campaign contributors; big money.
Q:  Who are the primary political campaign contributors?
A:  Big business, big banks, big corporations.
The big corporations have become our government’s “sovereigns”.  Today, corporations no longer compete among themselves in the free market to see who can best serve the People-sovereigns by marking the most innovative, efficient, and least costly products.  Instead, today’s big corporations compete in Congress by sending lobbyists to bribe congressmen to enact legislation that unjustly enriches a particular corporation or industry by shielding that corporation or industry from competition in the People’s free market.  The big corporations compete for legislative power to plunder the Peepul-subjects rather than serve the People-sovereigns.  Corporate competition in Congress generally consists of lobbyists handing congressmen pre-written legislation that will either 1) reduce corporate taxes; 2) reduce free market competition by preventing other corporations from entering particular markets; or 3) compelling the Peepul to buy the corporation’s products or services.
If the lobbyists attach enough money to their proposed legislation, a congressman will “represent” the corporation (not the People)—without ever even reading the proposed legislation.  Our Congress has become a commercial market populated by “brokers” rather than “legislators”.  Our laws have become commodities rather than moral statements of right and wrong.
Once, we had “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”  Today, we have government of the Peepul, by the treasonous whores in the cathouse on the Potomac, and for the Corporations.  That’s corporate sovereignty.  That’s fascism.
•  So long as our government’s primary purpose was to “secure” each man’s God-given, unalienable Rights, this nation rose to prosperity, power and glory.  Today, government’s primary purpose is plundering the Peepul on behalf of the corporate sovereigns.  Result?  Our nation is grinding towards an economic, political and spiritual collapse.
The economic problems we face today are far more than “economic”.  These problems can’t and won’t be resolved by tinkering with economic factors like interest rates, money supply, or the US Dollar Index.  The problems won’t be solved by hiring more government employees, cash for clunkers, or even “change you can believe in”.
Although many would disagree, today’s fundamental problems are not economic or political—they are spiritual.  Unless and until the Peepul begin to recall, understand and demand their God-given, unalienable Rights (and government’s correlative duty to “secure” such rights), this nation will continue down the same road that destroyed the former “super-power” Soviet Union.
The reason for this decline is that People and corporations live according to very different systems of values.  Once the corporations became apparent sovereign, our nation’s system of values evolved to serve corporations rather than People.  Corporations live and die by their bottom line.  Money is the corporations’ life’s blood.  Because all corporate existence is ultimately measured in money, the value system of every successful corporation is necessarily devoted to grabbing mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.
People aren’t built that way.  We all like money well enough, but we also love our families, our leisure, the confidence that our rights are secured—and many of us love God.  As a result, men and woman have a system of “natural” values that go far beyond the corporations’ maniacal love of money.  Our “natural” values are not easily ignored or displaced.  For us, these natural values are like oxygen or water.  If we are deprived of our natural/spiritual values for too long, we sicken and even die.   When a government abandons the people’s natural values and instead imposes corporate values (mo’ money, etc.), the people ultimately sicken and refuse to participate as an act of self-preservation.
Arguably, an “economic” depression is simply a time when the people are finally so sickened by a “politically correct” but inhuman system of values that they simply refuse to buy or work.  At bottom, an economic depression is not about economics.  It’s about a people who’ve been so artificially “stimulated” and addicted to low interest rates and “easy credit” to purchase gadgets, cars and homes they don’t really need, that they must finally quit their addiction or die.  An economic depression is caused by using the same “economic stimulants” designed to motivate corporations to instead motivate people.
In the end, economics is never about individual People; it’s about collectives and corporations.  Using the same economic “stimulants” designed to motivate corporations to motivate people is somewhat like giving a horse tranquilizer to a rambunctious two-year old.  In the short term, the horse tranquilizer may calm the child.  In the long run, the child may be so disabled that he may simply cease to function.
An economic depression causes a purging where a People finally vomit up all of the toxic corporate and collective stimulants they’ve ingested.  If another American depression is coming, we will vomit up all the corporate toxins we’ve ingested since the New Deal gave us a “national democracy” and seemingly stripped us of our status as sovereigns.  This future purging won’t be a pretty.  It won’t be fun.  And it’s going to be as painful for America as the withdrawal pains of a heroin addict trying to quit “cold turkey”.
Most importantly, the forthcoming purging won’t happen overnight.  We will remain in a depression until the People remember America’s spiritual foundation and compel government to perform its duty to “secure” our God-given, unalienable Rights.
In practical terms, what’s all this spiritual and philosophical mumbo-jumbo mean to you?
It means that no amount of additional economic “stimulants” (designed to motivate corporate sovereigns) will save the People from our current “over-dose” condition.  It means that our government’s attempts to serve the corporate sovereigns with “bail-outs” at the People’s expense are bound to be counter-productive.  The People, seeing ever more evidence that they’re being treated as subjects rather than sovereigns, will simply lose confidence in the government, stop working and cause the corporate “sovereigns” to go bankrupt.
President Obama promises that America is about the enjoy an “economy recovery,” but America really needs a “spiritual recovery” of the fundamental principles that 1) All men are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; and 2) government’s primary duty is to “secure” those God-given, unalienable rights and each man’s standing as a sovereign.  This need will not be quickly met.  The extended time required to re-educate the People to recognize, value, demand and even fight for their unalienable Rights, will cause this country to suffer a long-term decline (at least five years and probably more) that may be catastrophic.
So, in practical matters, these observations on political philosophy and spirituality mean that if you’re only prepared to weather a few weeks or months of coming economic turmoil, you’re not prepared for what’s likely coming.  You need to think about, recognize and possess whatever you and your family will need to survive several years of one of the most painful periods in American history.
There is trouble coming unlike anything Americans have seen since the Civil War.   Y’all best buckle up.
As always, I remain at arm’s length and within The United States of America,
Alfred Adask
Email:   alfredadask@yahoo.com
blog at: http://adask.wordpress.com

Cops: America’s Baddest Street Gang?

Cops: America’s Baddest Street Gang?

17 Marhttp://adask.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/cops-americas-baddest-gang/

Warning sign for police brutality. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This video below is infuriating.  It’s a collection of video-shorts on police violence.
But, these video-shorts have been “cherry-picked” to support the contention that the America’s police have become increasingly prone to committing violence against innocent Americans.  And there seems to be no doubt that the cops are dangerous to the people.  But how dangerous?  Is the growing volume of video evidence of police abuse simply the unfortunate result of a plethora of video cameras on the streets that record and post only the very rare instances of police abuse, or are the “pigs” really running wild?
•  Most Americans believe it’s tough being a cop.  Cops are portrayed as working in a dangerous world where they might be shot and killed at any moment by “bad guys”.   And they’re all heroes, of course.  So we need to give ‘em a little latitude whenever they go off the rails. After all, the stress of their highly dangerous profession could drive any of us off the edge from time to time, right?

But, actually, police work isn’t that dangerous–at least not to the cops.  Aol Jobs lists the 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in the US as measured by number of deaths for every 100,000 full-time workers.  Those dangerous jobs range from #1, the most dangerous–fishing workers–to #5–roofers (I used to be a roofer for about 11 years but I never saw or heard of any other roofer dying on the job–except maybe from a hangover)–to #7–farmers–to #10–taxi drivers.
Cops didn’t even make the top ten.  You are more likely to die on the job as a fisherman, roofer, farmer, or even a taxi driver, than you are as a cop.  So, if the stress of being a farmer or a roofer isn’t enough to justify flipping out and beating the crap out of some innocent person, why should we tolerate unwarranted violence from members of the even less dangerous and presumably less stressful occupation of policeman?
•  In the video below, we see is evidence of a police “mentality” that’s prone to abusing and even oppressing Americans rather than serving them.
Is this “mentality” growing?  Hard to say.  Maybe police have always had a tendency to abuse but, thanks to the internet, we are only recently beginning to see evidence of that tendency.  Maybe the truth is finally coming out.  Or maybe the tendency to abuse has recently grown to a level that can no longer be concealed or overlooked.
Clearly, this video shows evidence of a gang mentality among police where they refuse to stop their partners from committing assault or even murder, they lie in concert to protect their profession, and they frequently conspire to commit official oppression by preventing complaints from being filed against members of their profession.  As the video observes, the cops are protecting their “turf” and demanding “respect”–just like any other common street gang member.
•  The cops no longer “serve and protect” the people.  They “serve and protect” the government.  They are the knee-breakers for the mob that presumes to run this country.  They are one of the primary reasons that the Pew Research Organization reported that 53% of the American people feel personally threatened by the government and 75% distrust the government.
The cops see themselves as isolated from the public in the same sense that the Bloods or Mexican Mafia see themselves as isolated and separated from mainstream America.  They feel surrounded, perhaps desperate, but also heroic.  Their fundamental loyalty is to their profession and fellow officers–their “gang“–not the American people.
Ideally, that gang mentality will be eliminated by reintegrating the police into American society.  That reintegration could be best achieved if the police could somehow learn to earn, rather than demand and coerce, respect.  That reintegration could be best achieved if the cops would show that they are dedicated to enforcing the people’s rights rather than the government’s powers.
If the cops won’t serve the people, but instead opt in favor of oppression, then it’s time to review the original purpose for the Second Amendment. Nobody want that. Not really. But if the only way cops can gain respect from the people is by force and violence, then it’s probably and unfortunately true that the only way the people can regain respect from government is also by force and violence.
If push comes to shove, the government will work diligently and desperately to persuade the American people that some elements of the people (drug dealers, street gangs or “sovereignty movement” members) have initiated violence and the “heroic” cops must respond in kind.
But that won’t really be true. The truth is that if we see major domestic violence, it’s already been, and will continue to be, initiated by the government against the people.
This video is evidence that such violence has already been institutionalized, is implicitly authorized by our government and is ongoing at this time.
•  Note the number of skin-head cops who perpetrate the violence in these incidents.  If you run into one of these bald-headed pigs, you can presume he’s a psychopath looking for a reason to bust someone’s, anyone’s, head.

video   00:56.54

Is the Federal Government Supreme?

From the Trenches World Report
www.FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com
March 17th, 2013

By Paracelete

While observing the proceedings in a federal District Court, I was taken-back by the blatant arrogance of the judge masquerading as a constitutional officer. The case involved a civil dispute between two corporations. After setting a briefing schedule and reading the opposing attorneys the riot act concerning the conduct of his courtroom, the judge did something that illustrates the extent of the usurpation of power being perpetrated by the federal government.
When one of attorneys told the judge he was unavailable for a motion hearing because he was scheduled to be in state court for a murder trial that same day, the judge came out of his chair and told the attorney to remind the state judge of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.
He went on to state that since the federal government is supreme and above the States, the judge in murder case would have to change the date of the trial to accommodate the federal proceedings in his courtroom. If this federal judge had not been a constitutional renegade, he would have never asserted that the federal government is supreme and above the States.
The so-called “supremacy” clause is found at Article VI, Clause 1 and states in part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land – any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nowhere in this provision does it state the federal government is supreme and above the States. It simply states that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme.
Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:
[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land – It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution -[Bold not added]
In the New York Convention of 1788 considering ratification of the proposed constitution, Hamilton responded to the criticisms being leveled against this provision:
I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this ¾ that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supreme.
In Hamilton’s words we see the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. This clause does not expand federal power; it restricts federal power because that government only exists within the confines of its limited enumerated powers. When the federal government departs from the Constitution and enacts laws outside the scope of its delegated powers, those laws are not “supreme or binding” because the federalgovernment does not exist outside of its limited enumerated powers.
In order for the federal government to be supreme and above the States, it would first have to have the constitutional power to modify or abolish the powers of the States. No such power was granted to the federal government by the Constitution. In fact, since the States created the federal government, they have the power to abolish or amend the powers of their federal government any time they wish.
The amendment process is found at Article V and provides two methods for proposing amendments. Two-thirds of the States [34] can request a Constitutional Convention or Congress [two-thirds of both Houses] can propose amendments. When a proposed amendment is adopted by Congress and submitted to the States for consideration, the States have the exclusive power to accept or reject the proposal and neither Congress nor a majority of the American people have the constitutional authority to over-ride their decision. In addition, if the States call a Constitutional Convention to amend the powers of the federal government, Congress is constitutionally powerless to stop them.
When a proposed amendment is under consideration by the States, it takes a vote of three-fourths of the States [38] to ratify any proposed change. Neither Congress nor a majority of the American people has a vote in this process. Likewise, neither the federalgovernment nor the whole people can override a three-fourths vote of the States. The 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States with a majority of the population. This proves conclusively that federal government is not supreme and above the States.
There is another way to read this clause. The Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States. If this clause is read in that context, it reads as follows: the contract between the several States, the Constitution, and all laws and treaties passed pursuant to the contract between the States shall be the supreme law of the land. It is the contract between the several States that is supreme, not the federal government. That government is simply the entity designated by the States to execute the limited functions entrusted to it by the terms of the contract.
Unfortunately, the federal government is using the illusion of supremacy to awe the States and the American people into undue obedience to its unconstitutional dictates. One example is the theft of land within the several States. The federal government cannot constitutionally acquire or exercise any legislative jurisdiction over land within one of the United States unless it complies with the consent requirement enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. To get around this lack of authority, the federal government has used the supremacy clause to invoke condemnation or eminent domainpower to take control of the land.
It should be remembered that eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. The term “sovereignty” is interchangeable with the word “supremacy.” Before the federal government could claim a general power of supremacy within the several States, it would first have to establish that the States surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government when they adopted the Constitution.
In Federalist essay No. 32, Alexander Hamilton reiterated the principle that the States, under the Constitution, would retain every pre-existing right [power] that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government:
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. [Emphasis not added]
Hamilton noted that the Constitution would establish a “partial union” between the several States. If the States were being consolidated into one nation they would not be delegating powers, they would be surrendering powers. That would include their sovereignty. In reality, the States did not surrender their sovereignty; they only delegated a portion of their sovereign powers to the federal government for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, since the Constitution established a “partial union” between the several States, and the federal government was granted its powers from the States via the Constitution, the federal government cannot be supreme and above the States.
The failure of the States to control their federal government will have dire consequences if it is allowed to continue asserting supremacy over the States. In the New York Ratifying Convention referenced above, Hamilton warned of the consequences if the States ever lost their powers:
The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.
If the States and the American people do not awaken and assert their supremacy over the federal government, that government will ultimately turn Hamilton’s warning into reality.
Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003. Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/08/is-the-federal-government-supreme/
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by From the Trenches World Report of www.FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com.

From the Trenches World Report is intent on uncovering more documented facts to bring to light that which the common man or woman is not meant to see. We are in a war for nothing less than our right to individual thought. We will be reporting on that war From the Trenches.

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture
By Jon Rappoport
March 18, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”
It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.
Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?
At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.
But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.
Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”
Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.
In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.
Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.
In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.
Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.
But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?
In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.
It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.
Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:
“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”
These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:
full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;
forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;
forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;
and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.
Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.
Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…
All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.
The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.
And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.
In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2^nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.
They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for”testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.
Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.
This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.
Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.
Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?
No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.
There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.
If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.
Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?
Jon Rappoport

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crimes families working a trillion-dollar hustle
by Jon Rappoport
March 1, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.
The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.
Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.
Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”
Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.
That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.
When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.
Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.
Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.
In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.
With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?
Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.
Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.
It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”
How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?
There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.
Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.
But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.
In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.
Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.
Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

---

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.
Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.
“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”
Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.
Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”
And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25^th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:
“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”
Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.
The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

---

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.
I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.
This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.
Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.
These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.
Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:
Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The Globalists play for keeps.
Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

---

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.
It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.
The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.
The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.
Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.
Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.
Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.
Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?
These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

---

The heart and soul of THE MATRIX REVEALED are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together. One of those Matrix-insiders is ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.
One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

---

Part of every new reporter’s training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:
“We’ve already covered that.”
“It’s old news.”
“People aren’t interested in it.”
“It’s too complicated.”
“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”
“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”
“The people involved won’t talk to you.”
And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”
This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.
If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.
Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.
But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.
All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.
One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”
Jon Rappoport

What’s Behind the Emergency Management of Detroit? Michigan Governor Imposes Corporate Rule

Bankruptcy lawyer vows to restructure city government to pay the banks

By Abayomi Azikiwe

Global Research, March 18, 2013

Pan-African News Wire

Region: USA

Theme: Global Economy

On March 14, multi-millionaire Gov. Rick Snyder appointed Kevyn Orr as an “emergency manager’ over the city of Detroit. Detroit becomes the latest city in a string of other majority African American municipalities in Michigan to fall under the dictatorship of the state who are serving as agents of the banks who claim that the people owe approximately $16.9 billion in long term debt.
Orr, who was involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy re-structuring in 2009, immediately warned the city unions that they would be a target of his efforts. He said “Don’t make me go to the bankruptcy court. You won’t enjoy it.” (autopsies.com, March 18)
The emergency manager went on to say that “Bankruptcy’s been my stock and trade. I’m very comfortable in bankruptcy courts. You can do everything by consent…When I say consensual, I mean…let’s get at it and work together because we can resolve this.”
Orr previously worked for the international Jones Day law firm which ostensibly specializes in “turnarounds” for private corporations. The bankruptcy process with Chrysler Corporation led to massive layoffs in the tens of thousands, the freezing of wages and the institutionalization of a two-tier wage structure.
In Detroit, municipal employees have been forced to take up to 20 percent pay cuts and the erosion of healthcare and pension benefits. Since the corporate-oriented Mayor Dave Bing took office in 2009, some 4,000 city employment positions have been eliminated.
At present the city is facing a monumental economic crisis. Public transportation is in an abysmal state, lighting is out in large sections of city and streets are in gross disrepair.
Although the City Council filed an unsuccessful appeal in the state capital of Lansing on March 12 against the state takeover, Snyder announced two days later that he was moving forward with the seizure. He introduced Orr at a press conference at the state office building in the New Center area while demonstrators picketed outside condemning the move as an act of dictatorship and a total abrogation of the democratic rights of voters who just in November, had voted down the emergency manager law in a statewide ballot initiative.
What’s Behind the Emergency Management of Detroit
The emergency manager guarantees that debt-service be paid to the banks. All existing labor contracts and other measures can be thrown out based upon the interests of capital. Jerome Goldberg of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition spoke to the crowd outside the state office building on March 14 saying that the appointment of Orr is designed to enrich the financial institutions. He was met with great applause with people chanting “make the banks pay.”
In response to the declaration of a “financial emergency” by Snyder on March 1, the Moratorium NOW! Coalition issued a statement and press release opposing such actions and pointing out that it was the banks and corporations that were responsible for the economic and political crisis in the city. The statement was widely circulated online and prompted an interview by Bloomberg News.
The Moratorium NOW! Coalition statement read in part that “Snyder along with the corporate media is blaming the people of Detroit for their current plight, yet the situation in existence in the city is a direct result of racist and exploitative practices of the financial institutions and the corporations. Over the last decade more than 237,000 people were forced out of the city due to home foreclosures, utility shut-offs and the elimination of jobs.”
This same statement continues noting “Piled on top of this massive loss of employment and fraudulent mortgage lending, the city government was forced into credit default swaps (cds) and other questionable municipal loans which have rendered the people to indebtedness that can never be paid off. In addition, the bond rating agencies such as Moody’s, Standard & Poor and Fitch have continued to lower the creditworthiness of the city and therefore driving up interest and penalties where the banks can now claim all tax revenues that should be utilized to pay for municipal services and education.”
In Bloomberg News, David Sole, an organizer for the Moratorium NOW! Coalition and a recently-retired municipal employee with the Department of Water and Sewerage told the publication that “We have no lights, no buses, poor streets and now we’re paying millions of dollars a year on our debt. The banks said they need to be paid first. But there is no money.” (March 14)
Another article in Bloomberg on March 15 approaches the crisis from the standpoint of the denial of voting rights to nearly half of the African American residents of Michigan who are under emergency management. It is true that the emergency manager, or dictator law, harkens back to the Jim Crow era, nevertheless, so does the use of banks in targeting African American households and communities as source of avaricious profit-making and usury.
The existing political structures in Detroit and other cities with majority African American populations in Michigan are being strangled by the banks and corporations. The threat of bankruptcy by Kevyn Orr and Rick Snyder is designed to force even greater austerity measures upon the people of Detroit.
These putative solutions by Orr and Snyder will not work because the entire capitalist system is in crisis across the country and the world. In Washington they have taken $85 billion out of the federal budget which was signed by Barack Obama.
The Need for United Action in the Struggle Against Emergency Management
In the statement issued by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition the organization calls for “an immediate halt to all debt-service payments to the banks which would immediately provide enough revenue to operate the city. The banks must then be held accountable for their robbery and consequent destruction of Detroit.”
According to the data compiled by Bloomberg, “Banks including UBS, AG, Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase & Co. have enabled about $3.7 billion of bond issues to cover deficits, pension shortfalls and debt payments since 2005. Liabilities rose to almost $15 billion, including money owed retirees. These figures were taken from a state-appointed Financial Review Team report in 2012.
The Financial Review Team’s report led to the appointment of a so-called Financial Advisory Board (FAB) that has veto power over all decisions made by the City Council and Mayor’s Office. The FAB was put in place through an illegal Financial Stability Agreement (FSA) that was authorized by a narrow 5-4 decision by the City Council on April 4, 2012.
Yet despite the imposition of a FSA some ten month later the Governor announced that it was not enough and went on to declare a financial emergency and appoint an emergency manager. This was done under the new emergency manager law which was passed hastily in a lame duck session in December.
Other legislation was passed during this period including a right-to-work bill, the abolition of personal property taxes on businesses and other draconian measures. All of these bills will further impoverish the working class and the nationally oppressed in the state of Michigan.
The Moratorium NOW! Coalition in its statement called for “mass demonstrations, rallies, press conferences to protest and denounce the actions of Snyder and his collaborators. These protests should “expose the criminal nature of the banks and the corporations who are at the root of the financial crisis in Detroit and throughout the state of Michigan.”
Meanwhile, the first batch of some 2,700 documents has been released to Moratorium NOW! as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed earlier in the year. The organization is setting up a people’s review board to analyze the documents to expose that the existing crisis is a direct result of the banks.